4.6 Article

Quantification of Heat Loss for Different Charging Profiles in a Li-Ion Battery

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 1831-1840

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TEC.2020.3042160

Keywords

Heating systems; Temperature measurement; Lithium-ion batteries; Voltage measurement; Current measurement; Thermal management; Battery charge measurement; Li-Ion battery; Heat loss; calorimetry; charging profiles

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1454578]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Electrical, Commun & Cyber Sys [1454578] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study quantitatively analyzed the thermal characteristics of Li-Ion batteries under different charging techniques through experimental validation and theoretical explanation. The models established for heat generation and entropic heat generation were able to accurately predict the heat loss under different charging profiles.
The thermal characteristics of a battery are vital in order to understand its health and safety. The thermal characteristics are influenced by charging techniques. This paper presents theoretical explanation, experimental validation, and an analytical method to quantify the heat loss influenced by charging techniques for a Li-Ion battery. Constant current constant voltage (CC-CV), sinusoidal ripple current constant voltage, and pulse current constant voltage charging profiles are used as test cases for validation. The electrical and entropic heat generation for different charging profiles are modeled and estimated based on battery equivalent parameters. The estimated heat generation is compared with the heat flux measurement from a differential scanning calorimeter. In addition to the heat flux measurement, temperature, state of charge, terminal voltage, and current were recorded and analyzed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available